Talk:Salvatore Giuliano

Untitled
I'm surprised this article isn't fuller; Giuliano is an important figure in Sicilian history. I'm going to try to fill it out a bit. Incidentally I believe Pisciotta was Giuliano's cousin. --61.68.103.208 12:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pisciotta
Pisciotta was not Giuliano's cousin. Professor Chandler's book puts this to rest. I'll be doing some work on the article based on this book "King of the Mountain" soon. --Tapered 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thompson beretta?
There's no reference or documentation for the forensic evidence from the Portella della Ginestra massacre. The language, "9 mm Thompson beretta" is suspect. Thompson is a type of American submachine gun never manufactured outside the US to the best of my knowledge. Beretta is the family and brand name of an Italian arms manufacturer. If there is an English translation of any recently discovered forensic evidence, could someone please post a link? If untranslated, could someone please translate and post? Thanks! --Tapered 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is hopelessly short in references. The historian Giuseppe Casarrubea (see his blog in Italian ) talks about "il mitra corto Thompson" without mentioning "beretta". I am not a weapon expert, but it seems you are right. By the way, I would not only take Chandlers's book as a reference, but have a look at 'Storia segreta della Sicilia: Dallo sbarco alleato a Portella della Ginestra' (The secret history of Sicily: From the allies' landing to Portella della Ginestraof) by Casarrubea as well. Not translated (yet), I am afraid (from a flyer of the publisher: "Following scrupulous study of the papers declassified by Bill Clinton in 2000 at the National Archive and Records Administration (Maryland), together with other Italian secret service documents, never systematically analysed before, Giuseppe Casarrubea reconstructs the map of subversion in Italy in the period featuring the constitution of national unity governments and of paramilitary groups, after April 25th 1945 - the date of Italy’s liberation. In doing so he turns the spotlight on the 1947 massacre of a group of civilians in Portella della Ginestra in Sicily." ) He comes up with the theory that the Portella della Ginestra massacre was an attack by clandestine anti-communist networks (a kind of forerunners of the Gladio network), often composed of former fascist militia's. - Mafia Expert 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I put the passage in invisible, before seeing your comment. If you do have the book, could you add the reference with chapter & page? Even better if you have some time: quoting some parts of it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Monument? A national hero?
There is a small monument to the MIS, and by obvious inference to its leader in the area Giuliano, in Montelepre. It was erected in 1980, dedicated by Giuliano's sister. There's a photo in Prof Jaynes Chandler's book. As best I can remember, this same book documents support for Giuliano throughout Italy. He was well-known throughout Europe and written up by a Greek/Swedish journalist, Maria Cyliakus--also well documented by Jaynes Chandler. Tapered (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thorough Edit
I'm planning to give the article a very thorough going over. I plan to use Professor Jaynes Chandler's book as my guidepost. I have read the book several times over the years, and was once exhaustively familiar with it. I regard the book as close to brilliant, and its gentle, balanced concluding chapters represent historical analysis close to its NPOV best.

Many past edits have been positive and NPOV. These will be respected and incorporated.

Without rancor, I intend to remove the POV additions of SugnuSicilianu. I'm sympathetic to the sentiments, but they're quite POV. I suspect that Francesco Rosi would approve of them. I'd like to suggest to Sugnu that a separate article on the socio-economic situation of Sicily incorporating Sugnu's interpretation and others, with reference to Giuliano, would be a more appropriate venue.

Comments, please!

Tapered (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you will consider more sources. I added some paragraphs from the book Separatism, the Allies and the Mafia: The Struggle for Sicilian Independence, 1943-1948 by Monte S. Finkelstein, published in 1998. Very thorough research about the Sicilian independence movement, not just about Giuliano. But it puts Giuliano in the proper context. Good luck with the edit. - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw a program on the History Channel today (about the history of organized crime in the U.S.) where they said that Salvatore Giuliano was a supporter of Sicily becoming a part of the United States (and that it was, supposedly, a common position of the Sicilian Independence Movement after WWII). They also claimed that his murder was ordered by the Mafia. Does anyone know if any of these claims actually correct and supported by other sources? If yes, perhaps something along those lines should be mentioned in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm Italian with a strong interest in post-war Italian history - came across this article by chance and must say I found its contents absolutely AMAZING, in strident contrast with the work of the most reputable Italian and Sicilian historians! For instance: "Giuliano led his remaining men on a raid to the mountain pass Portella della Ginestra on May 1, intending to capture Sicily's most prominent communist, Girolamo Li Causi. However, the event turned into a massacre. Fourteen civilians, including a woman and three children, were killed and more than 30 wounded. Giuliano himself (who fired no shots) stated he ordered his band to fire above the heads of the crowd hoping they would disperse. Some sources accuse the Mafia of infiltrating it and claim mafiosi instead shot at the crowd causing the massacre.[8]" Absolute total crap, even the number of victims is incorrect and there is NO indication ANYWHERE in Italian records and/or historical reconstructions that Li Causi was present or expected to be present let ALONE that he himself was the target of the massacre!! Object of the massacre was NOT to kill Li Causi, it was to terrorize the Sicilian peasantry into giving up their widespread demands for land redistribution: in addition to the Villalba attack, note that from 1944 to 1954, no less than 44 Sicilian trade unionists and land-reform activists were murdered by the mafia on behalf of agrarian-aristocratic interests.

More generally: since the Italian, British and US archives for the period have become available to historians some crucial aspects of this period of Sicilian history have been clarified, so my suggestion is: scrap this entire article - apparently based almost entirely on outdated and/or deliberately "romanticized" non-Italian sources - and replace it with a competent translation of the far more up-to-date, very well sourced Italian wiki entry: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portella_della_Ginestra#La_strage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.216.77 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My father Tommaso Filingeri was born in Montelepre on December 25th 1922,His parents were Carlo Filingeri and Maria Pisciotta, my father told me a lot about Giuliano, one particular fact was that Giuliano order his people to shoot over their heads. My Father had intimate knowledge of Turiddu Giuliano, they were about the same age. He once told me he was approached by Aspanu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1281:8640:A9A8:6580:9F28:B0EB (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Centigrams"
One "centigram" (unit not usted) is equal to 1 kilogram. It would be hard to hide 20 kg ( or even 20 g)of strychnine in a cup. For people still using imperial measurments it would be around 44 pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.147.30 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A centigram is 1/100 of a gram, not one kilogram. - DonCalo (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Velouchiotis
Removed Aris Velouchiotis from the "See Also" section. The Greek was primarily political, with a lifelong history of leftist political activity. Giuliano became active in politics over a year after his banditry began, and remained a bandit after his political involvement ended. Tapered (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Critique
This articles contains significant mistakes, some seemingly inserted to support the beliefs and whims of contributors. It also cites and lists dubious references.

1)”... was a Sicilian peasant, a separatist and, according to some sources a bandit who was mythologised during his life and after his death.”

Emphasizing "peasant" is (possibly class-ideological) is misemphasis. There were at least a million peasants in Sicily at the time. This isn't the reason SG warrants a Wikipedia article.

“..according to some sources a bandit” According to some sources the world is spherical.

“...mythologized” Nothing in the cited sources says this. Why is “mythologized” included? An ideological bias?

1a) “He has been compared to Robin Hood in popular culture, owing to the stories about him helping the poor villagers in his area by taking from the rich and redistributing the spoils.” Nothing in the cited reference backs this assertion. SG and Robin are mentioned, but not in a way to justify this statement. Further, the sentence seems to imply that Giuliano didn't redistribute wealth. He did.

2) “...limited by class strictures...” Family finances were an important reason for Giuliano's leaving school, but according to Chandler, SG attributed his leaving to youthful impulsiveness.

3)”...Giuliano and his band fought a brutal battle with authorities in which perhaps a thousand separatists took part. “ Giuliano never controlled more than 50-60 men.

4)”Giuliano also fostered a number of myths around himself...”

All of the “myths” are attested/documented.

There is no cited reference.

Is someone obsessed with myth making?

4a) Giuliano shot first at Quattro Molini

5) References fr/ Italian language sources w/ no reputable translator named

6) Possibly unreliable reference and bibiographic sources

John Dickie identifies Pisciotta as Giuliano's cousin, discredited long before 2004. Helists three mysteries on p. 215 that are explained quite matter of factly in 	Jaynes Chandler's book, including Giuliano's final letter to 	Verdiani giving away his trump card and their meeting in Castelvetrano in late 	1949.

Servadio also identifies Pisciotta as Giuliano's cousin. She seriously questions 	whether Pisciotta killed Giuliano. She also accepts Perenze's assertion that he 	and his squad intended capture Giuliano instead of killing him on 5 July 1950 in 	Castelvetrano. Additionally, Gregorio de Maria is identified as a mafioso, when he was anything but a participant in the 'Honored Society.' (Chandler, p. 174)

The historian Giuseppe Casarrubea is, evidently, the prime mover behind the 	exhumation of Giuliano's body—based on the theory that someone else's body 	was substituted for the bandit's on 5 July 1950. Let's consider what would be 	necessary to pull off the hoax. Luca would have to find a fresh, unembalmed 	corpse and deliver it to Castelvetrano. Then he'd have to coach Maria Lombardo 	Giuliano to faint and emote over the body. What would Luca's motivation be? Giuliano's corpse guaranteed him the thing he wanted most in life—promotion to 	the rank of general. (Chandler, p 167) How much of a bribe would Giuliano have 	had to pay to get Luca to take the chance that Giuliano might just turn up 	somewhere after he, Luca had certified the death to Italy's entire power elite? Casarrubea's irrational pursuit of a missing Giuliano casts doubt on the reliability 	of his work, in the event that any of it is translated into English. Tapered (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensive Rewrite
I've just done a complete overhaul of this article, based almost exclusively on “King of the Mountain” by Professor Billy Jaynes Chandler, a painstakingly researched, dispassionate (but not bloodless) volume by a specialist in banditry and brigandage. For those who object to such reliance, I can only challenge them—find another book half as well done and researched IN ENGLISH or a RELIABLE TRANSLATION of an Italian (or other language) book, and edit away. This edit, I believe, addresses all the issues raised in my recent complaint about the article. I'm including the next section to show how citations as of 16 May 2013 were included or excluded from the new edit. Regards. Tapered (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation/Reference/Footnote explanation
Tapered (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Doesn't substantiate subject in article. Included in bibliography.
 * 2) Doesn't substantiate subject in article. Used as reference elsewhere.
 * 3) Doesn't substantiate subject in article. Used as reference elsewhere.
 * 4) Doesn't substantiate subject in article. Included in bibliography.
 * 5) Included
 * 6) Passage and references included in article.
 * 7) Included
 * 8) Included
 * 9) Superseded by Chandler, included in bibliography
 * 10) Superseded by Chandler, included in bibliography
 * 11) Superseded by Chandler
 * 12) Pages cited do not correspond to article material
 * 13) Discarded—Italian language document, contents of article covered by Chandler
 * 14) Doesn't substantiate subject in article. Included in bibliography.
 * 15) Superseded by Chandler, included in bibliography
 * 16) Passage and references included in article, but is referenced as “Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, p. 27” in the “Historical Context and Interpretation” section. The “Cultural Resistance Reader” is included in the “Further Reading” section.
 * 17) Included, despite non-English: main content covered by #18
 * 18) Included
 * 19) Included
 * 20) Included


 * Although the original article may not have been perfect, I have serious doubts about this rewrite. Among the many deficiencies, it relies too much on one single and dated source (Chandler) and fails to include more recent research, in particular from Italy. I don't see why Italian language sources should be discriminated against. Furthermore, it is poorly written, with too many spelling and grammar mistakes and fan-like weasel words. It includes too many unnecessary detail that prevent a good understanding of the subject. - DonCalo (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One or two of the criticisms here and in the laundry list info box now at the beginning of the article have genuine validity. The article needs to be pared down, in particular. Probably not difficult. Chandler is hardly dated. Anything but minor sourcing from another language ought to be from a recognized, vetted translation. "Discrimination" is a weasel word. Tapered (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Categorical analysis of 'Issues Box'
 * Grammar: a bot caught the worst punctuation issue--done. Spelling elicits no (English) Sandbox responses. If the writing isn't great, please improve it
 * Lead section: valid, already addressed, and hopefully there can be more productive edits. There has already been an edit that included productive elements, but also some very unproductive ones.
 * Single source: Chandler is by far the most comprehensive source in English. Finkelstein and Hobsbawm are excellent, but limited in scope. Dickie and Servadio are, pro forma, reliable sources, but there flaws have also been detailed in the "Critique" above. There's little to no information in their books not covered by other, better works. Translations needs be vetted.
 * Intricate detail: Addressed recently. Giuliano's story is complicated. Specific suggestions/pruning, please.
 * Too long: intertwined with intricate detail, which seems the most operational way to deal with this issue.
 * Weasel words: Some potential "peacock" words since removed. Please detail examples of bias. Dubious and not very productive to label anything in an article with 112 references as "unverfiable." Perhaps over-verified. Tapered (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've responded to what I consider the valid criticisms listed, and edited the article, including unnecessary, counterproductive edits. Please address this response to the issues box, or I'll remove it. Thank you. Tapered (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no one has addressed the issues above, I intend to remove the box within a week. Tapered (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Issue box removed--to repeat, no one has factually addressed the 'categorical analysis' above, so there is no factual basis for the box. Hence it can go. Tapered (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Discussion
Giuliano is in Wikipedia because he was a "well-publicized" bandit, not because he was a peasant or a Separatist. To suggest that "some say a bandit" has to be considered dubious editing--it would be interesting to find a source saying that he wasn't a bandit. The previous article mentioned myths, but none were documented; in fact the ostensible 'myths' are documented events, mentioned in the rewrite section concerning "Pattern of Operation." The minor doubts about responsibility for the deaths at Portella della Ginestra are documented in Chandler--mainly the possible presence of Mafia gunmen at the same time as Giuliano's well-documented participation, as well as the local Mafiosi's alibis and their warnings ahead of time to May Day enthusiasts. Tapered (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Pfff, a lead is supposed to summarize the main facts of an article, which, in this case includes Giuliano being a sparatist. He is generally held responsible for the Portella della Ginestra massacre as established by the Courts, whether you like it or not. The doubts about are detail that belong further down in the article. - DonCalo (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Separatism is included. The court's verdict was included, along with a statement about minor doubt. Tapered (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Giuliano became a figurine of political forces he did not understand" This is Hobsbawm's opinion/interpretation covered in the Interpretation section. It's presented here as though it were a fact like the rest of the Lead.Tapered (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"He has been compared to Robin Hood in popular culture." This was supposedly referenced by Hobsbawm in a previous iteration of this article. In point of fact, Hobsbawm cites Robin Hood as the archetype of "noble robber" category of "popular bandit." He never compares him directly to Robin Hood. Giuliano's own photo of himself as "Robin Hood," and Hobsbawm's categorization of the bandit are both covered--neither is vital to a good Lead. Tapered (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Tapered, you had your go at the article and have made valuable contributions to it. However, there several issues with it as listed in the lead. Maybe it is time that you leave it for a while for others to clean it up. You are getting too emotionally involved, which is not a good recepy to improve the article. Thanks for your understanding. - DonCalo (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's covert label and dismiss. Label an editor "emotional" and dismiss the edit as a good 'go.' That's not civil and it's not Wikipedian. I'm staying away for a couple of days. A good faith response on your part would be an answer to my response to the complaints about the article. Also, I think the right place for this and your last response would be my Talk page or yours. Tapered (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed the 'controversy' phrase from the Lead. I believe that it references Casarrubea's claim of a body-double. The DNA evidence is in, and the dubious logic of the body-double scenario has already been covered in the "Critique" section above. Tapered (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Forking
I'd like to shorten the section covering the Portella della Ginestra massacre by improving that article and then forking to it from the corresponding section of this article. If someone with an interest in Separatism can improved the articles associated with it, that Separtism section here can be also be shortened productively. Tapered (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Italian-Sicilian
While it's 100% correct that Sicily is part and parcel of Italy, Giuliano is strongly associated with the island. His identity is primarily Sicilian. So I reverted a lead edit that identified him as 'Italian from Sicily.' To clarify matters, "Italy" was added to his birth and death info in the info box, along with the appropriate flags. Tapered (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re:infobox flags. I've now seen WP:INFOBOXFLAG—it's always good to link to existing pages! I added the icons to placate an editor who wanted 'Italy' affixed to Sicily. The icons also differentiate the old pre-WWII kingdom from the modern state, but since it's against consensus policy, no flags. Tapered (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Salvatore Giuliano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/notizia.php?IDNotizia=378270
 * Added tag to http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/notizia.php?IDNotizia=378270
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709102339/http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/sicilian_robin_hood/1_index.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/sicilian_robin_hood/1_index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources only, please
Just removed a December 2019 edit, referenced by an Italian language blog, translated as "The Other Agrigento Online," which in no way qualifies as a reliable source. (Maybe for Association Football?) If Professor Jaynes Chandler is to be believed, and most historians think he is, Giuliano considered Mafiosi to be "parasites," though he did do business with them throughout his banditry. Ergo, his first Carabiniere victim was not a victim of the Mafia. Tapered (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

POV concerns
Parts of this article directly attack the validity of the government's story and the role of certain actors in this person's life in Wikipedia voice. Phrases like "The official story, so clearly dubious to locals and astute observers" and "There can be little doubt that elements of Mafia committed the crime, with the blessing of the conservative and reactionary politicians with whom they were connected" are extrmely problematic. This should not be done. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing these up. I have taken care of these. Please consider embedded maintenance tags over a banner if there are just a few points. Also, I have noticed that the article often has a paragraph with a single source at the end. I assume this source covers the entire paragraph, but that style I do not like because it leaves other editors (like you for example) who come along and see that and think that it is unsourced. I am not certain this is the case here, but I have seen that cause confusion in the past. Also, if the source does use those peacock/weasel words, I think they are permissible to be used if they are in quotes for example, but since that is not the case, nor do I think they should be used either way, I have removed them. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The language may have been weighted, but 70 years later the shootout with Captain Perenze is still the official government account! Tapered (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)